W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 1999

RE: FW: Accessibility of ATW

From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:55:09 -0400
Message-ID: <01BEC95A.43A551A0.bbailey@clark.net>
To: "'Web Accessibility Initiative'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "'Anne Pemberton'" <apembert@crosslink.net>
Much of the WCAG is subject to interpretation.  Take 2.2

Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient 
contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a 
black and white screen. [Priority 2 for images, Priority 3 for text].

This seems straightforward enough, but when it come right down to it, 
"sufficient contrast" is subjective!

Or how about 3.1:

When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images 
to convey information.

The example the techniques document uses for this is for mathematical 
equations.  I read this to mean that IMG of text should NOT be used (for 
headings and the like).  It is left to the content provider to determine 
what is "appropriate" though.  If I can't use CSS to make over lapping 
letters with a 3D effect, and I think that this is important, then I can 
use "Welcome" as a .GIF rather than inside a <H1>.

14.2 is no less subjective.

It is up to the author to decide when to "Supplement text with graphic or 
auditory presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the 
page" and this is strictly a judgement and aesthetic call.

No where in the WCAG does it mandate that sites be attractive and useful 
and popular.  Every content provider does their best to make a "good" page. 
 You can't regulate what is tasteful design and what is not!  The WCAG 
provides a definition of "accessible" -- that's it.

The ATW site in question has earned its triple A rating!  You can't 
arbitrarily change that definition to mean "usable by non-readers" or some 
other such thing.

BTW, I screwed up earlier.  It is checkpoint 3.3 (not 3.6) that says to 
"Use style sheets to control layout and presentation".


----------
From: 	Anne Pemberton[SMTP:apembert@crosslink.net]
Sent: 	Thursday, July 08, 1999 7:08 AM
To: 	w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: 	Re: FW: Accessibility of ATW

Kynn,

	The only reason I am subscribed to this list and to the gl list is to work
towards getting the guidelines updated to include the greater number of
disabled who depend on graphics and multimedia for comprehension of text.

	My thought in pointing out the lack of accessibility that comes with a web
site that supposedly "earned" a triple A rating, is to raise consciousness
on the fact that even meeting the lowest level of compliance (or the person
said they did), doesn't result in an accessible page.

	As Jason pointed out, the site doesn't meet the guidelines set out in
14.2, even tho 14.2 is a low priority, it was completely ignored on this
site, to the detriment of those who would want to access the information.
This page is (as I understand) now displaying a triple-A logo of
compliance, yet it isn't compliant.

	And I will re-interate what I've said before, that guidelines that address
the NEED to include graphics, including 14.2 and others, should be much
higher priority than level 3 because of the vast numbers of people who NEED
this compliance to access the content of a page.

	Jonathan has proposed some good specifics on the guidelines that need to
be re-written to include cognitively disabled folks. I strongly suggest
that these changes be incorporated in the next possible update.

				Anne
	


At 01:32 PM 7/7/1999 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>At 07:48 AM 7/6/1999 , Anne Pemberton wrote:
>>	If a triple-A rating indicates a site is as close as possible to ALL
>>disabled persons, then I seriously question whether this site deserves 
such
>>a high rating.
>
>A triple-AAA rating indicates a site that is close as possible to
>all three levels of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0;
>nothing more, nothing less.
>
>If you feel that it's not properly accessible, then you must work
>to get the guidelines updated, rather than dealing with individual
>sites that claim triple-AAA compliance.
>
>
>
>--
>Kynn Bartlett                                    mailto:kynn@hwg.org
>President, HTML Writers Guild                    http://www.hwg.org/
>AWARE Center Director                          http://aware.hwg.org/
>
>
Anne L. Pemberton
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
http://www.erols.com/stevepem/apembert
apembert@crosslink.net
Enabling Support Foundation
http://www.enabling.org
Received on Thursday, 8 July 1999 15:53:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:33 UTC